- From: kei cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:54:50 -0400
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >>From: kei cheung >> >>. . . >>I agree that gene names are interesting use cases for URI/LSID. In >>addition to synonyms (different terms may be used to refer to >>the same >>concept), we need to deal with homonyms (the same term may mean >>different things). As discussed in the BioRDF call yesterday, >>I promised >>to come up with some neuroscience examples for URI/LSID, here is one >>such example for looking up the definition of "spine" in wikipedia. >>Notice that this term has different meanings in different contexts >>(biological vs. anatomical). It looks like we might want to >>think about >>the possibility of providing such a context in LSID for >>disambiguation. >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spine_(biology) >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spine_(anatomy) >> >> > >Shouldn't they just be different URIs, just as they are in wikipedia? >Why would one want to use the same URI for two different concepts just >because the same English word happens to be used for both? > >David Booth, Ph.D. >HP Software >dbooth@hp.com >Phone: +1 617 629 8881 > > Hi David et al, Yes, they should be different URI/LSID's, but should we standardize on how to express these different URI/LSID's? For example, the wikipedia URI's include the domain-context (e.g., biology or anatomy) in parentheses. I think this is one standard way of using different URI's for referencing homonymous terms. Cheers, -Kei > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 19:55:04 UTC